In siding with Mr. Altan, the court noted that the laws of the District and Maryland are substantially similar in this area and Maryland law grants venue both where the prohibited actions took place and the location where the decision was made to engage in the unlawful acts.  The court then proceeded to examine both public and private interest factors.  Observing that “the case involves a Defendant who is headquartered in the District of Columbia, and a substantial amount of the alleged discrimination against [the] Plaintiff originated in the District of Columbia,” the court found that it had the authority hear the matter and was unconvinced that there were any burdens sufficient to disturb Mr. Altan’s choice of forum.  

In analyzing defendants’ argument that Mr. Altan failed to state a valid claim, the court was clearly moved by the egregious facts alleged in Mr. Altan’s complaint, and found that it was certainly possible for Mr. Altan “to prove a set of facts which would entitle him to relief.”  A copy of the order is available here.

For more information on The Employment Law Group® law firm and its Sexual Orientation Discrimination Practice, click here.

Reeves, the only female employee on the sales floor of a shipping company was confronted with such extreme vulgarities that the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion contains a disclaimer that “we do not explicate this vulgar language lightly, but only because its full consideration is essential to measure whether these words and this conduct could be read has having created ‘an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile and abusive.’”  In addition to offensive language, Reeves also observed her co-workers discussing the anatomy of another female employee and witnessed a co-worker viewing pornography on his computer.  Reeves attempted unsuccessfully to resolve the issues with her co-workers, middle, and senior management and at one point was told, “better wear your earplugs tomorrow.”  Reeves resigned and filed a Title VII complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. 

Examining the record, the Eleventh Circuit found “a substantial corpus of gender-derogatory language addressed specifically to women as a group in the workplace.”  The court applied a disparate treatment analysis and isolated the issue to whether “the conduct alleged. . . created a hostile work environment that ‘exposed [Revees] to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex [were] not exposed.’”  The court distinguished between general and indiscriminate vulgarities and references to sex from repetitive “comments addressed to the plaintiff’s ‘target area’,” which the court said may constitute actionable harassment. The court next addressed the employer’s inaction, finding their complacency to be the same as an affirmative authorization of the conduct and thus an intent to discriminate.  The court also rejected the employer’s argument that it lacked intent since the same behavior took place before Reeves was hired. 

In an important win for victims of harassment and discrimination, the Eleventh Circuit declared that insults aimed “at a protected group may give rise to the inference of an intent to discriminate on the basis of sex, even when those insults are not directed at the individual employee.”  Accordingly, a “jury could reasonably find. . . the alleged offensive conduct in the office contributed to conditions that were humiliating and degrading to women on account of their gender,” creating a hostile environment.  Also of note, the court observed that insulting a man by comparing him to a woman could be taken as humiliating to women as a group as well.

This decision affirms the right of employees not to suffer conditions in the work place that are disparately humiliating, abusive, or degrading.  The Employment Law Group® has developed a practice committed to protecting the rights of employees.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Sexual Harassment Practice, click here.

Also included in Mr. Kumar’s complaint are allegations that he was told to start a business selling statues of a Hindu god and ridiculed over his accent.  After attempting to assert his rights, Mr. Kumar was retaliated against and ultimately terminated.  Hilton Hotels claims that the adverse employment actions suffered by Mr. Kumar were related to performance and in no way related to his national origin or alienage.  They also claim that continued poor performance and behavioral issues were to blame for his termination and not his engagement in the protected behavior of asserting his rights.  Finding that genuine issues of material fact exist surrounding all claims, Judge Donald appropriately denied the motion on all counts.  Importantly, Judge Donald also found direct evidence of alienage discrimination, prohibiting summary judgment from being granted.  A copy of the opinion is available here.  A jury trial is scheduled to begin January 19, 2010.

Mr. Kumar is represented by Adam Augustine Carter and R. Scott Oswald, Principals at The Employment Law Group® law firm.  For more information on the firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

Wesley, a firefighter in Arlington County, Virginia, claimed that she was discriminated against and refused a requested promotion due to her race and sex.  For years she met all of the department’s published and formal objective requirements for promotion to Captain but she was continually passed up by the Chief during a final “roundtable,” where unpublished subjective criteria are discussed. 

The McDonnell Douglas framework requires an employee to present a prima facie case of discrimination which the employer may then rebut by showing an alternative cause for the allegedly discriminatory act.  To be victorious, an employee must then prove that the employer’s cause was merely pretextual.  To survive a motion for summary judgment, an employee need only present a prima facie case.  The Court found that the trial judge wrongly applied the second and third prongs of the McDonnell Douglas frame work when it granted a motion for summary judgment for the County. 

In the second case, Harman v. Unisys Corp., the court granted a motion to dismiss an employee’s numerous discrimination and Fair Labor Standards Act allegations.  The Court agreed with the trial judge’s dismissal of several counts and even stated that the complaint was “cumbersome and voluminous and contains numerous irrelevant allegations.”  However, the Court found that the district court should have allowed the employee an opportunity to refine her pleading and cure formal defects, even if the court doubted her ability to do so.

While these decisions are unpublished and therefore non-binding authority, they nonetheless show an increased willingness of the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit to give employee-plaintiffs an opportunity to properly present their case. 

 For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

About three years prior to the accident and 18 months before being hired, the employee was labeled as totally disabled by the Social Security Administration due to psychological issues.  The employer claimed that since the employee was “totally disabled,” she had no loss of earning power from her present injuries.  According to her employer, she was only eligible for workers’ compensation payments for the time during which she was employed.  The court disagreed and found that the prior determination by the Social Security Administration was not controlling on the issue of earning power and liability for workers’ compensation.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Employment Law Practice, click here.

The plaintiff delivered a letter to her employer alleging that she was being paid less than her male counterparts.  About two weeks later, she was told her position was being eliminated.  She filed a complaint alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and retaliation under the EPA.  Her retaliation claim was dismissed in June 2006 and her Title VII claim in September 2008.  In October 2009, she filed her motion on the basis that evolving federal case law and recent Supreme Court decisions support her position.  The Court granted the motion, citing the “changing trend in the interpretation of federal laws prohibiting retaliation in the work place.”  The Court also acknowledged that retaliation is another form of intentional discrimination.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Equal Pay Act Practice, click here.

Other courts have taken a different approach.  The 6th and 8th circuits have held that the Act should be read to incorporate all of Title I of the ADA thereby excluding independent contractors.  With a split among the circuits, perhaps we’ll see this on the Supreme Court’s docket before long.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

The Act restricts the ways in which an employer may go about obtaining genetic information from an individual and their family.  With a few narrow exceptions, employers and other covered entities are prohibited from requesting, requiring, or otherwise obtaining genetic information about an employee or their family.  This includes an employee’s or applicant’s family medical history.  The Act also mandates certain privacy restrictions regarding the sharing of genetic information, similar to the restrictions contained in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA).

Employment rights under the Act are to be enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  The EEOC has mandated that employers display new posters with disclosures about this law where other Equal Employment Opportunity posters are required.  As with most federal employment laws, enforcement of employee rights under this Act can be complex and may require that an individual first file an administrative complaint. 

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Discrimination Law Practice, click here.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Sarbanes-Oxley Practice, click here.